6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Medical Centre and was diagnosed to have "prostatitis"[12] and declared "unfit for duty."[13] Petitioner disclosed to the foreign doctor that he: (a) has a history of prostatitis that occurred three (3) years ago; (b) was treated for kidney stone in August 2013; and (c) was not under any regular medication.[14] Thus, on May 1, 2014, petitioner was medically repatriated[15] and referred to a company-designated physician for further evaluation and treatment. His ultrasound[16] revealed "Cystitis with Cystolithiases; Prostate Gland Enlargement, Grade III with Concretions; and Bilateral Renal Cortical Cysts," while his CT stonogram[17] showed "Cystolithiases; Bilateral Non-Obstructing Nephrolithiases; Bilateral Renal Cortical Cysts; Prostatomegaly." In a Medical Report[18] dated May 5, 2014, the companydesignated physician eventually diagnosed petitioner's illnesses to be "Cystitis with Cystolithiases; and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH)," which he declared to be not work-related[19] explicating that cystitis (inflammation of the urinary bladder) secondary to cystolithiasis (urinary stone formation in the urinary bladder) was usually on account of a combination of genetic predisposition, diet, and water intake, while BPH involved changes in hormone levels that occur with aging.[20] Notwithstanding this finding, petitioner was consistently monitored by the companydesignated physician and was even recommended to undergo "Open Prostatectomy with possible Transurethral Resection of the Prostate"[21] for his BPH and "Open Cystolithotripsy with Possible Laser Intracorporeal Lithotripsy and Endoscopic Extraction Bladder Stones"[22] for his Cystolithiasis. Thereafter, he is subjected to three (3) sessions of "Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy."[23] The length of treatment was estimated at three (3) months barring unforeseen circumstances.[24] While awaiting approval of the foregoing procedures, the company-designated physician noted petitioner's increasing complaints of pain during urination that was accompanied with blood, for which he was prescribed medications.[25] He was also inserted with an Indwelling Foley Catheterization to address his persistent hypogastric pain and difficulty in urination.[26] On July 10, 2014, petitioner underwent Open Prostatectomy with possible Transurethral Resection of the Prostate,[27] as well as Open Cystolithotomy on his own account.[28] On July 14, 2014, petitioner also underwent "Cystoscopy, Evacuation of Blood Clots and Coagulation of Bleeders."[29] He was also subjected to continuous cystoclysis (bladder irrigation).[30] However, despite the foregoing procedures, petitioner still suffered from intermittent pain on his hypogastric area[31] and attempts to remove his indwelling foley catheter were shown to be unsuccessful.[32] The specialist further opined that petitioner was suffering from urethral stricture and possible urinary bladder neck contracture, for which he was recommended to undergo "Urethroscopy, Visual Internal Urethrotomy, Cystoscopy, Transurethral Resection of Bladder Neck Contracture."[33] Meanwhile, in the letters[34] dated August 4, 2014 and September 18, 2014, the company-designated physician reiterated that petitioner's illnesses were not workrelated, while his subsequent urethral stricture was only secondary to the series of surgeries he had undergone and as such, was likewise not work-related. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63721 2/13